Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lordship Lane

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. dbenbenn | talk 16:16, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Lordship Lane

Roads are not inherently notable, and the article offers no evidence of this road's notability. Possible vanity. Uncle G 16:48, 2005 Feb 3 (UTC)

Roads that appear in literature and are significant enough to have their own websites are important enough to keep.--Centauri 01:23, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Even a toddler can have a website these days. As it stands, there is no claim to notability. Simply having a crime novel set there is not enough. What was the importance of the street in the novel? JoaoRicardo 04:52, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep I've categorised it. There is no reason to suppose it is vanity. Since Uncle G is so fond of nominating articles for deletion, I would be grateful if he could sort out a working user page so we can find out something about him and try to fathom his motives. Philip 02:05, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep This article provides useful information and is categorisable as important, particulary due to the concrete house. Brendanconway 02:13, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
keep, a major enough road --SPUI (talk) 13:58, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. For the most part, roads aren't notable, which is a good thing because otherwise we'd have thousands of articles about roads, written by people who live on them. There are a few exceptions, but the road through a southern suburb of London, which is of marginal notability itself, doesn't seem like it is one, and the fact that some obscure 1946 crime novel had "Lordship Lane" in its title doesn't make it more so. --BM 01:15, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Nonnotable road. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:34, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Not a vanity article; did I mention that Pissarro painted a picture of this locality in the 19th century? -- The Anome 12:59, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. High standard article and with a number of notable features including the Pissaro painting, heritage buildings and a famous person in Enid Blyton having lived in the street, it has enough claims to make it notable. Capitalistroadster 19:06, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Comment. How many trivia items have to be associated with a road before it becomes notable? Enid Blyton lived here. (not Enid Blyton! Oh my Gawd, we have to put this place on the itinerary, Myrtle!) Pissaro painted it. (Oooh...) Oh, and somebody in 1946 wrote a crime novel with Lordship Lane in its title. (We have to read it on the plane.) And "Heritage buildings"! (That settles it. Cancel the Paris leg of the trip, Henry, so we can spend more time on Lordship Lane.) Seems like the threshold is pretty low for roads. --BM 21:00, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- The bar for notability should be lower when something it part of a system, like roads or train stations. Or Rambot towns. --SPUI (talk) 23:48, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
A bit iffy, but on balance I'd say keep. There are probably fifty or more London streets alone that have significant cultural or historical interest to warrant entries, and eventually I guess they will get them. I reckon Lordship Lane just about squeaks in. HowardB 07:58, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. For me, the number of trivia items required is about 2. Kappa 11:52, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. The fact that google comes up with 20,900 results for a string search (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Lordship+Lane%22&btnG=Google+Search) must mean something. I wish my street aroused such interest. --Waddypak 01:23, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.